ADDED: Some people think my comment is too terse or too vague. Sorry, but I thought Palin's response Couric was painfully awkward. (I really don't care about Couric's problems.) Palin had a substantial knowledge gap, and she didn't know how to hide it. It felt too much like the possibly forgivable "In what respect, Charlie?" And when combined with the news that the campaign seemed to be finagling to move the VP debate to a later time, it made her look they way her opponents have been trying to paint her: unprepared and weak. It's really not good enough.

AnnDid you mean Palin was horrible or Couric? It's obvious that Palin needs to learn a strategy for answering questions that are based on totally bogus assumptions. That's not easy to do. But she has to do it with confidence."Katie, I get your question but I think sadly, that your people haven't done their homework. My question to you is, why aren't you asking Sen Obama why he has taken well over $120,000 from Freddie and Fannie? Those are well established and broadly known and verified that you haven't followed up on. Don't you think it's that kind of money that has corrupted Sen Obama"s judgement and calls his leadership and desire for change into question? And BTW, Rick Davis has not worked with these people, as you allege, since 2006 and even then his role was not what you are insinuating."

I agree with Rhhardan. Deep down Palin doesn't think more regulation is the answer and she is right. Bad regulations is what got us into this financial crisis - specifically the regulations to encourage fannie and freddie to acquire subprime loans. I don't think McCain is much for regulation either. So its all kind of a sham.

Although I also think Obama despises people who live in small towns. He is against coal mining and hates industry. So who is the bigger sham?

Most people can see the glaring disconnect and double standard of the likes of the perky Katie Couric and CBS relish playing "gotcha" with McCain and Palin, but as the same time not having even the slightest interest in the doing same with Obama. In this particular instance, where are her questions to Obama about Franklin Raines and James Johnson? Move along folks, nothing to see here. This is one big fat example of a reason why their ratings are so bad.

If he knows what better? I'm not trying to be a pest here. I just want to understand what you mean by this. Is there some particular statement or policy position you are basing this on? The surge, or what?

I just don't get this new set of rules for VP candidates. Since when does a candidate have to know his running mate's 30-year record? And yet Biden gets a pass when he contradicts Obama on clean coal, on the AIG bailout, on the McCain-can't-use-email ad, on guns... his current positions?

Palin should have said. "I will have to get back to you. While I know a lot about John McCain and what his vision of America is, I have not sat down to memorize his 30 year history of public service and how he has voted on every bill."

Contrast this with Joe Biden, where it took him 15 minutes to memorize Obama's record, mostly because Obama's record is only a half page long.

With this question you can see the the media has totally bought into the framework of "deregulation as culprit." Palin should have been ready to attack the premise of the question. "Why do you assume that more regulation is the answer? These were among the most regulated businesses in our economy."

The opening sequence in which Couric brings up the inane Davis story again shows the groupthink of the news media. Here you have two candidates: one attempted to put in some oversight on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac; the other voted to continue the status quo. That is a real story about the candidates' actual approach to the issue at hand. (And why didn't Palin hammer that home as answer to the regulation question? Missed opportunity.)

The Times preferred to ignore the elephant in the room and go for inside-campaign trivia. CBS picks it up and pushes it on.

Deep down Palin doesn't think more regulation is the answer and she is right. Bad regulations is what got us into this financial crisis - specifically the regulations to encourage fannie and freddie to acquire subprime loans.

Appropriate regulation is the key, not just more regulation. A completely unregulated sector of this mess were the independent mortgage brokers who pushed a lot of these sub primes and in turn, packaged them as securities and sold them to the dolts like Lehman and others who didn't bother to actually do the necessary due diligence.

Regulation isn't a bad thing. We regulate casinos to make sure dice aren't loaded or the craps table doesn't have a magnet underneath it. A non-regulatory environment is nothing more than a business version of Lord of the Flies. The problem is enacting appropriate regulation rather than knee jerk legislation designed to make the public think our elected officials are actually doing something constructive.

The sad part is, she missed a great opportunity. McCain supported tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in late 2005/2006, but it was blocked by Dems who feared it would restrict availability of loans for low-income home buyers. I've wondered why McCain isn't trumpeting this more, since the only thing I've heard of it has been on blogs. Surely this should be a talking point drilled into both McCain and Palin as a response to these kinds of questions?

It will be interesting to see if she gets better by next week's debate. Even as a supporter, I oppose bumping it back. If she can't get up to speed enough to do a debate after a month with the campaign, we need to know that.

I just don't get this new set of rules for VP candidates. Since when does a candidate have to know his running mate's 30-year record?

That's a fair question but lets keep in mind who are setting the rules and who they want to see win in November. McCain and Palin should know every interview they go on is going to be a concerted effort to trip them up and therefore should be prepared. Her answer was at least honest as opposed to a deer in the headlights look and a stammering reply.

I agree that it is too-high expectations to think that Palin would know McCain's complete voting record. To know generalities, though, like if he's ever voted for more regulation, is fair, although to then ask for a specific example is harsh.

Why? It was totally expected. It is not shocking. Look, Obama picked a bumbling, fumbling, idiot as his running mate. The cretin is all over the press making stupid statements and blundering during interviews, and he is getting a pass. A free pass. Just like Obama and CLinton got.

Anyone McCain picked was going to get politely torn to shreds by the MSM. Even a man as respected as Colin Powell would be victimized.

Ernie said: Henry, the problem is that even if she answered the question with that question, they will say she avoided answering the question.

If she showed some heat, they wouldn't.

Successful politicians don't let questions get in the way of their preferred answers. Palin's biggest handicap was being too nice. She let herself get pulled into the media's simplistic narrative, where Republicans go to drown.

I wrote a nice long post, and then I got a "duplication" error. Let me sum up.

KC: Other than this timely, relevant, perfect example of JM's leadership in a crisis, can you give me another example?

SP: This example is perfect, why do you need another example?

When KC insisted, SP should have said, "You got me, what are the other examples?" I'm sure KC would have had no idea either. Gotcha! games are just so lame. I'm surprised that Anne thought SP was on the wrong side here.

SP said that she was "ill" over this type of government intervention, why would she be able to point to other examples? She and JM are against this type of thing. I'm sure she's happy to say that there are NO other examples.

What is a realistic expectation for a major threat such as SP when she is in enemy territory? I think giving straight-forward answers, while making the interviewer look petty/accusative is just about as good as you can do! Are you supposed to get an A+?

She did okay. Really, she hasn't done a Biden foot down throat gaffe yet in any of her three interviews. The problem is she knows she's gonna get savaged when she does (and she will). Biden just gets a pass because for him its a daily occurrance - just like hitting the crapper. Oh that Joe...

I think her handlers are making her play defense when she needs to go on offense. The woman showed she wields the knife with a smile. She's not gonna be a inside the beltway policy wonk and that's her strength - play it. Rail against the machine - there's a lot of anger aimed at policy wonks. Channel it. And ask what has Obama or Joe done?

These two subjects are the base of her core narrative. It's a deal breaker when you fib about your core narrative.

I'm not sure that is accurate. For those who knew who she was prior to McCain choosing her as his running mate, her core narrative was of being a reformer who wasn't afraid to take on her own party and implement change.

If parsing loose comments like the BTN or Alaska's energy is a problem for you, I would think you will have issues with any candidate regardless of political persuasion.

If he knows what better? I'm not trying to be a pest here. I just want to understand what you mean by this. Is there some particular statement or policy position you are basing this on? The surge, or what?

Populism. The two choices are that he knows better, or he doesn't know better.

You get traitor territory on undermining Iraq by giving hope to the other side that holding out might be a good idea, for what, two years or so. No matter who it kills when a political career is at stake.

There are three kinds of voters. The Victorias of the world will vote for Sarah Palin, few questions asked (If only sloanasaurus would get out of the voting booth!). The alphaliberals of the world won't vote for Sarah Palin no matter what. There's a great tide of people in the middle, pondering.

I'm still deciding, and I have to learn about her. Hearing her say What has Obama done? is just evasive. I don't want evasion right now, I want information. (And besides, it sounds whiny -- who doesn't know everything about Obama?)

free-market capitalism is just like jeffersonian democracy! Neither one needs over sight or checks and balanaces because we should trust in the better nature of man.

Being for less regulation doesn't mean this. Some regulation is good. If you are going to have an FDIC, you need regulation to protect the government from harm.

However, if you get too much regulation, it starts to compete with itself, and the result is actually less effective regulation. This is what happened with Fannie and Freddie. On one side you have strict rules on how they buy and see mortgage. Competing with that you have rules on Fannie and Freddie being urged to buy subprime.

The few people who were able to tune in and didn't know what Couric was doing are going to still like Palin for her looks - nothing really lost or gained here - the bungling victim? I don't think so...chores and whining kids and aching backs still take priority over sophisticated nuance

She should stop doing interviews. This is so skewed it's ridiculous! It's like the Salem witch trials; this woman has offended their emotional/religious dogma and has no right to run for office, but if she can survive the dunking, they will allow her to run.

It's never a pretty sight watching politicians talking about complex economic problems. Gov Palin is no better or worse on that score. Her plainspokenness is, in some ways, a relief, and much preferable to the usual politician's windy bloviating that says nothing but uses many more words to do so.

The "more regulation" mantra is also a gotcha of Team McCain's own creation. The meltdown in the financial markets wasn't the result of a lack of regulation. It was, instead, the result of consciously adopted national policy, over many decades, to promote home ownership and the housing market. Cheap money and loose credit were part of that policy, as were favorable tax treatment of housing as an asset and housing loans as debt instruments. And the market players followed up with a vengeance, reacting to all of the incentives to overinvest in housing that national policy created. Using those incentives and lots of ingenuity, they created a really hot housing market for along time. But bubbles always burst, and the housing bubble was a really big one. The one before this (the .com bubble in the stock market that burst in 2000) was pretty spectacular too, but it was nothing like this.

The immediate problem is that the balance sheets of almost every major financial institution are weighed down by assets (subprime mortgages, either in securitized form or stand-alone) of indeterminate value. Since no one knows what the future rate of default will be on the underlying mortgages, no one knows what these assets are worth. As a result, these assets are basically unmarketable today. But they are very far from worthless.

Whoever wrote Bush's speech last night got that part of it exactly right. Paulson's solution is to buy them up, at current distressed prices, so that the financial institutions can get it all off their balance sheets. That is key to maintaining solvency, particularly under current "mark to market" accounting rules. Bush's discussion suggested that the plan was to hold the assets until maturity, rather than attempt to resell them into the market at some future date.

Merrill Lynch did its own version of this maneuver a while ago (before its forced sale to B of A), when it dumped a huge portfolio of securitized mortgages to the Blackstone Group at 22 cents on the dollar (and, to boot, lent Blackstone the money to do the deal).

And under the Paulson plan, the Treasury will end up making a killing (just as the Blackstone Group will).

The basic reason is that this is a liquidity-driven crisis, stemming from the unmarketable state of assets having substantial value that the market is nevertheless unable to price and that none of the financial players can afford to hold (those "mark to market" rules again). By definition, the Treasury can't have a liquidity problem and so it is the only institution that can step in and stop the spiral from spinning out of control. And it gets to buy the biggest portfolio of all at firesale prices.

The losers in all of this are the equity holders in all these institutions. Selling assets at 22 cents on the dollar (or whatever comparable price Treasury will pay) means that the equity holders in these institutions are taking a big hit. In the case of Bear S and Lehman, of course, that hit reduced equity previously (i.e., a week before) worth billions into worthless paper. All those wonderful options that management had been holding were immediately worth nothing -- can't even sell them on eBay. And all the company stock in the 401K and pension accounts was worth zero. All the talk about the "fat cats" on Wall Street making out like bandits is crazy.

None of the politicians wants to address these realities (with the notable exception of Bush last night), mostly because they think (no doubt correctly) that people want someone to blame. Who better than Wall Street "fat cats" even if the whole story is a fantasy? (And, if you listened to Gov Palin, it's clear that none of them is eager to blame the "American consumer" for taking out mortgages beyond their means to repay).

Palin's too direct and honest. She'll have to do what other Pols do - ignore the actual question and answer the questions *you* wanted to answer. Clinton would have gone off on a 5 minute tangent about how bad the opposition party has been on this issue.

Besides, it doesn't matter how she answered. Per the MSM all Republicans are either Evil or stupid. McCain is evil, palin is stupid. Reagan & Goldwater were also "stupid" while Nixon and Delay were "evil".

"The few people who were able to tune in and didn't know what Couric was doing are going to still like Palin for her looks - nothing really lost or gained here - the bungling victim? I don't think so...chores and whining kids and aching backs still take priority over sophisticated nuance"

Trust me, you WILL feel ridiculous, eventually. You just don't know it yet.

You must mean "direct and honest" without actually answering the question...or even know what the answer might be?

The interview was excruciating.

I can't believe how many people here still say they think this woman is qualified to be the Vice President of the United States.(Although I suspect more than a few are not that enthused, but have to hang with the locals.)

I understand ideology, but we're all Americans and if our standards for an office of such magnitude has degenerated to this point, God help us.

Reagan & Goldwater were also "stupid" while Nixon and Delay were "evil".

Some of you have really gone off the deep end. Even if you accept the above assumption, it is immensely silly to say that Palin has the huge national knowledge of Nixon, Reagan, and Goldwater when they were criticized.

This sort of explanation for Palin's isolation from and fluff filled answers to the media is dumb, especially from conservatives. Take Reagen; the guy was developing a grand and complete political philosophy for decades, e.g. he gave speeches around the country as far back as the fifties.

So now the conservatives tell us that Palin is like Reagan. Funny stuff.

Cut her some slack. Last Monday, that question would have been easy "McCain doesn't usually favor regulation, he thinks the free market, while not perfect, is usually the best way to solve problems - the market is very good at fixing itself", etc. Which I would agree with.

But McCain's position had changed by Wednesday, and suddenly he's in favor of regulation.

McCain has flip-flopped. Don't blame Palin for being unable to square the circle. If she was defending her own positions it might have been easier. But it's hard to defend the positions of someone who keeps changing his mind every day.

Cut her some slack. Last Monday, that question would have been easy "McCain doesn't usually favor regulation, he thinks the free market, while not perfect, is usually the best way to solve problems - the market is very good at fixing itself", etc. Which I would agree with.

But McCain's position had changed by Wednesday, and suddenly he's in favor of regulation.

McCain has flip-flopped. Don't blame Palin for being unable to square the circle. If she was defending her own positions it might have been easier. But it's hard to defend the positions of someone who keeps changing his mind every day.

I'm sorry, but Governor Palin does not read well in this interview. Little of what she said was focused, and the ham-handed way she tried to inject campaigning - suggesting that responsible parties would want to hear from one senator and not the other - was embarrassing.

I agree that Palin did not sound Presidential, but consider the circumstances. If you were tied to a chair, while Charles Manson was interviewing you with a meat cleaver in his right hand, how poised would you be. Obama and Biden step into a MSM interview, the way Palin steps into a warm bath. The wariness and hesitation that Obama showed in his interview with O'Reilly was on display in Palin's interview with Couric....The big loser was not Palin but the MSM. Couric was pleasant and affable but one could see her setting traps left and right. Couric was waiting to pounce, and Palin picked up on that.....You can argue that Palin should have handled Couric's wiles with more finesse, and perhaps with practice she will. But where are the traps and the snares that are set for Obama by the MSM?

MM said...I'm still deciding, and I have to learn about her. Hearing her say What has Obama done?

The point was Palin there. Couric wouldn't let Palin talk about Palin's views, so why wasn't Obama's views just as relevant as McCain's, particularly when Couric took McCain's regulation of Fannie/Freddie off the table as well.

Couric: Yeah, your guy was right, on point wanting to regulate the key area that created the collapse, and yeah, my guy Obama hasn't done squat, and you may have views, but I don't want to hear them. Tell me what financial regulation McCain was in favor of, as long as it isn't relevant. I don't want to hear about Fannie or Raines, or Johnson, or Obama or anything else that would be informative. let's just keep this focused on what you don't know about McCain rather than what you do know.

Ann, you ought to update the post with this counterpoint response. I think it's the winner:mcg said... I just don't get this new set of rules for VP candidates. Since when does a candidate have to know his running mate's 30-year record? And yet Biden gets a pass when he contradicts Obama on clean coal, on the AIG bailout, on the McCain-can't-use-email ad, on guns... his current positions?

If the electorate wanted a woman who could study and learn whatever can be studied and learned about politics, Hillary Clinton would be the candidate. I think people appreciate Palin not for her intellect but for her instincts. She may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but she casts the warmest glow....I bet there isn't a partner at Lehman Bros who isn't smarter than Palin. Smart people think that there is something special about being smart. There isn't. It's just a parlor trick. The most difficult skill a human being can master is being good.

mcg said... I just don't get this new set of rules for VP candidates. Since when does a candidate have to know his running mate's 30-year record?

The answer is of course the MSM haven't gone in that direction because they know the average VP didn't know or care to know crap about the front-runner's 30 year record before they were selected as running mate. (Unless they were Fellow Club members - ie, the Senate). Nor required to memorizebiographical and decision-making minutea about the Presidential nominee once selected.

"So, Mr Gore, describe each significant regulation Bill Clinton adopted in Arkansas that you think show his reformist philosophy.""OK, Mr Gore...since you are ignorant of any reform in Arkansas, including the famous Bluemelon vs. Bluemelon Johnson land dispute, please describe the most compelling feature of Bill Clintons 1989 budget proposal.."

Stupid gotcha questions. The public, much to the media's shock, "gets" that. Partisans may crow, but people that are undecided will be pretty immune to Katie and other "Inside the Beltway" folks asking questions they figure any normal person could care less about.

Gore again - "So, Mr. Bush...what is your position on Dingell-Norwood? Surely you've heard of Dingell-Norwood?....I have..I know all about Dingell-Norwood as VP..."

If Gov Romney or Gov Pawlenty had been picked, or Gov Jindal - two geniuses amongst them - all three would have either not cared or known about McCains Senate economic regulatory voting record - or spouted off cram-memorized sound-bites that would have shown they knew nothing and cared to know nothing about McCains Senate vote nuances until weeks beforehand...

It's bad enough that even Senators get confused about their records, as convoluted as the Clubhouse rules make them - where you can lead the fight against a measure in Committee, but vote for final passage because you get a key change made to the same or a different measure.

Imagine Katie asking Silky Pony to explain Kerry's voting record when Kerry himself lacked the brains and memory to coherently discuss his 26-years of foreign and military policy votes...

But of course, she didn't, nor did her peers, because they were not as obviously in the tank for them as they are for Black Messiah....

I agree with Henry--Palin missed an opportunity to turn the interview and question the basic assumptions of Couric. On the other hand, this is part of Palin's charm. I find it hilarious that her opponents complain when she's nice, complain when she's mean, complain when she doesn't do or say what they think they should.

Donn's also right; people are wringing their hands over Palin not knowing the weirdness of McCain's record as a senator. Yet Biden doesn't even know what Obama's position is on coal (or, it seems, on just about everything else.)

Besides, if we go with the meme that Palin may become president, wouldn't finding out her actual philosophy of markets be a bit more important?

I'm astonished by the hate I see in Katie Couric's eyes directedat Sarah Palin. It's just amazing. I've never seen anythinglike this in the media before. I don't think I saw hate inCharles Gibson's eyes, but he positively dripped with condescensionand sometimes contempt. My god we've sunk to a whole new level.

It is. In this case, it appears that has been stymied due to a combination of corrupt regulators and, most specifically RIGHT NOW, with government regulations on mark-to-market pricing.

(But also never confuse McCain's attitudes about the free market for actually being a free marketer--whatever McCain's views are, and despite some skepticism, he loves government and big solutions. It's one of the many things I hold my nose over while supporting him since Obama really loves BIG government and even BIGGER solutions.)

Duplication errors should not be a problem. Page back one to your comment page. Select and copy the comment you made for safety. Refresh page to see if it posted, wouldn't want to double post. It probably didn't post. Paste comment back into fresh comment box. Perform somersaults of glee for recovered post.

You realize that if McCain wins, we will have to put up with more years of this overwhelming hate? It will make BDS look pale in comparison--at least they had a war to tag their vitriol to. I feel sorry for Palin.

Hey, Couric may or may not loathe Palin, but how can you hold Couric responsible for this response?

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

Incidentally, here is the best explanation I've heard of the mortgage crisis and what the Paulson plan intends to do. Unfortunately, all the morons in charge, especially Paulson and Bush, have been piss poor at explaining this.

Can you find an answer from Biden as incoherent as this on the bailout? Or anything? What is she talking about?

"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation."

Why do you say that? Why are they waiting for McCain and not for Barak Obama.

* glares *

Ha ha ha ha. Oh, Katie, you crack me up when you're being so serious. I played Mario Bros. with a two year old. You should have seen his precious face whenever his little Mario fell in the crevice and the game reset. He'd get mad as hell. It was so sweet. Just like Katie.

Can you find an answer from Biden as incoherent as this on the bailout?

Just about every other thing he says.

More seriously, Biden pontificated at a hearing some time ago which was one of the most stunning displays of incoherence I'd ever heard. I wish I could remember the hearing and find the transcript. I do recall that when interviewed, other senators just shrugged and said they had no idea what Biden was talking about.

Palin fans have to deal with the reality that, at this point in her career, she is not well-versed enough in very many national issues to speak for the campaign on them.

She's great at making the overall case for John McCain. Almost as good as Bill Clinton.

But to pretend that, right now, she can be a player on economic issues or foreign policy is ridiculous.

For issues, I would keep her on energy (which was hot three weeks ago, less so now) and on the relationship between states and the federal government. She can talk philosophically about what working families need from a conservative perspective. She's the true "lunch bucket" candidate in the race.

She should mostly talk to friendly conservative outlets and local media. It is unimportant for her to pass this particular test, of talking to national bigfeet journalists, and only bad things can happen.

McCain ought to be deputizing other surrogates on hot issues. Perhaps Romney on the bailout and the economy. Perhaps Lieberman on Iraq and terrorism. Lindsay Graham on the courts, perhaps.

At this point, Palin is almost as much of a drag on McCain as Biden is on Obama.

It's funny to watch all these Palin apologists fumble around for an excuse. Umm, er, Katie Couric is horrible! How about calling a spade a spade - Governor Palin is in way over her head, and can't answer questions with any degree of intelligence or conciseness. Would you hire this person if she answered your questions like this in an interview?

One would assume such an interview is designed to reveal something about the candidate and HER views and HER record. Why should she be asked questions about her running mate's record? What precisely does that tell us about her?

Since Biden was chosen by Obama presumably because of his experience, do you think Obama would be asked by Couric to describe in some depth Biden's vote record?

In any event you get credit for watching because to be honest i cannot bear to watch even five minutes of Katie.

Often when I come here, I find Ann has written a post that makes no sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, this is one of those times. Apparently she has some problem with Palin in this interview, but exactly what that is we are, apparently expected to guess at. Is it that one iffy line at the end? That makes the whole thing a disaster?

If that's it, what do the incoherent, vague posts on this blog, which don't forget is written under zero pressure, make Ann Althouse? The mind boggles.

Really. It boggles.

Henry sees the truth:

"Palin's biggest handicap was being too nice. "

And that's it. She's honestly trying to answer Couric, who has put her (deliberately) in a position where she'll look bad. She's a mensch. She's not slick and manipulative because being slick is not her deal. Maybe that will change, but that would be a shame: We ALREADY HAVE THE CLINTONS, thank you.

People more observant than Ann Althouse can see what happened here. It's the easiest thing in the world to make any truly decent person (if you can find one) look stupid. (Likewise, you can easily make a snake oil salesman look like Mother Theresa - see the Bill Moyers' interview of Jeremiah Wright for reference.)

Couric did what she did because she'll get media attention for 'exposing' Palin. Such attention is her bread and butter. Truth, and the good of her country, are not her concerns.

I didn't think Palin did all that well. But watching this a couple things stood out. First was Couric explaining that they interviewed "at length" and so I go into the interview wondering what they decided to keep and what they decided to leave out.

I do sort of wonder if Palin was outright angry. Frankly. And I wonder how much of the apparent discomfort was from going into default polite-mode. And maybe it's just the accent confusing me into assuming certain cultural things (sounds a lot like ladies from Minnesota) but the suddenly perky, "I'll get back to you" would read to ME as the moment she broke out of that culturally enforced politeness and I and mine would consider running for the hills. (It was the end of what was shown of the interview in this clip so we can't tell if the interview changed tenor or not.)

The other thing I noticed was the intensity with which Couric was *reading* her questions. She didn't even glance down and then look back up to pose the question. She kept her eyes on the paper word-for-word. Which might lead a person to wonder if Palin might sound just as intelligent and poised if she got to do the same.

I agree that the interview wasn't good for Palin. I disagree it's quite as bad as those who totally dislike Palin would like to think. I don't know how many people will watch it and end up thinking that it's odd to be asking her over and over and over about McCain's record and not her own. She *has* dealt with regulation of some sort or other as part of her job. She had to have. I thought the answers she gave that reflected her own thoughts were fine. And I don't think that most people will really notice too much that any time Palin *had* a good answer, Couric hustled her on past it.

And I absolutely agree... the reporters aren't going to ask her questions that play to her strengths. Though in this case, they wanted someone to talk about the financial crisis and she's the one they could get hold of.

Reread the transcript. Palin didn't fail to support a statement. She claimed John McCain did "A," or side with less regulation. Couric asked for examples of "B," or more regulation. It was a non sequitur, and Politico is sloppy for presenting it as a mental lapse.

Put it into context. You tell me you're a nice man. I ask you about the times you were a horse's patoot. You tell me, rightly, to jump in a lake.

I will leave the evaluation of Gov Palin's performance with Miss Couric for my betters.

But I'm an economist and I'd like to comment on the source of the current financial crisis.

It just isn't the case that the current crisis was caused by a lack of regulation driven by some group of laissez faire ideologues.

The genesis of the financial crisis is in the housing/mortgage sector into which the government is sunk up to its hips and then some. This has been true since the 1930s and a series of actions--privatization of Fannie in 1967(?), CRA in 1978(7?), 1995, 2005--have dug the govt in deeper.

Blaming regulators is silly. The Congress was intimately involved in what regulators were permitted to require from the GSEs.

Both political parties will argue over who had more responsibility for the current situation but there is no doubt that it was a govt creation.

The people are now reaping the rewards of not paying attention to what their elected representatives were doing.

Sarah Palin is having two problems: 1) The Obots on the Internet and the media arm of the Obama campaign have hammered her and her family relentless since she announced. 2) The McCain campaign is mishandling her.

She isn't running for President. She should have been given the go ahead to nail the mediaswine when they pushed too hard. I'm sure she got plenty of experience doing that in Alaska.

She should also have been told to be herself and to move at a reasonable pace. In any other campaign at any other time, the expectation would be that a governor would BECOME prepared not BE prepared. Does anybody seriously argue that Bill Clinton was a foreign policy expert within a month of his announcement? The media's intense desire to cover up for Obama leaves them with too much time on their hands and too few ethical restraints.

I don't think anyone could have anticipated the extent to which Palin would be slimed, but once it happened her handlers should have developed a strategy for pushing back. This woman had the reputation for being an ass kicker. Her first response should have been, "You're misquoting me, Charlie. Try again, or we can move on to the next question!"

Peggy Noonan predicted that McCain's beltway handlers would take the starch out of her and they did.

Great video. What a smart woman Sarah is, sounding, to me, very capable, in dealing with the Couric talking head--up to and including the little promise at the end. No wonder Couric's numbers have gone south. She's just another media blowhard who wants to argue instead of report.

Just up a couple posts is Pres. Clinton talking about how the problem is that debates are very hard to arrange, and rearrange. That we know McCain wanted even more debates but it's hard to move them.

Why can't wanting to have the missed presidential debate at the time of the planned VP debate be *because it's all set up already*.

Hm?

Though I realize that "Sarah is ducking the press" is a powerful narrative, I'm not convinced she is. Of all the ways she can spend her time is that really the most valuable? And when she spends time "at length" talking to reporters, does she get any credit for that? Or does she just get highly edited?

Oh, and entirely unrelated to this... If the fellows in the North Dakota Air National Guard have snapshots of Russians in cockpits taking snapshots of them in return, and they do... you *know* the Alaskan National Guard does. It's not foreign policy experience but it does inform a world view that is both somewhat foreign and more realistic than that of most Americans who haven't a clue that we've been brushing elbows with Russia like that.

We don't think of Russia as our next door neighbor, but they are. Far closer than maps tend to show, even, because of that pesky map flattening effect.

Couric frames her question in a way that is essentially impossible to answer. Since McCain generally opposes increases in the regulatory burden (as Couric hereself notes) then it is natural that examples of proposals to regulate would far and few between. Palin should have noted this and then reiterated that McCain shows that he is no ideologue because he recognized that the subprime/moral hazard situation with FNMA and Freddie Mac required at least as much oversight as the rest of the banking industry. But hindsight is 20/20 and I doubt that you would have done much better.

I see no more reason for Palin to answer questions from Couric than from Howard Dean. She no more has to satisfy the media jackals than the DNC. The press is acting as Obama's propaganda machine and Palin should continue to ignore them. She can talk to the people that matter, voters, without the filter from the lapdogs.

I agree that this is painful in places, particularly the last line, and I agree that Couric's integrity is kind of beside the point, except in one respect. The cuts and edits in this segment clearly show that Palin was frequently cut off in the middle of answers, and that sometimes even the beginnings of her answers may have been removed. Now, if we could trust the interviewer to be fair, this wouldn't be such a big deal; there are time constraints after all. But when the interviewer isn't trustworthy, it's a lot harder to draw accurate conclusions from interviews like this.

Still, combined with the fact that the campaign is trying to push back the VP debate, it doesn't paint a pretty picture. (On the other hand, if she's going to lose the debate, wouldn't it be better if it's a good while before election day?). I'd really love to see somebody be as persistent in asking Barack Obama for specifics during an interview.

Elhombre at 10:14pm pretty much hits the nail on the head. The only thing I would add is that it isn't really the questions here that are potentially unfair (although they're a lot more skeptical than the ones Obama gets in most interviews), so much as the editing. You can't hit back at editing without making more people see a bad video than otherwise would.

Katie Couric is repulsive and obnoxious. She couldn't hold Sarah Palin's skinning knife at a moose kill, much less run an unbiased interview. She's a media ghoul looking for a corpse on which to feed. Sarah Palin is too much fresh meat for Colicky Couric.

Hmm, is a VP expected to be an expert on the details of her running mate's congressional record? We have a specific example of McCain proposing action that may have averted this crisis. What other examples are needed? Did Katie want to establish that Republicans, including McCain, generally support less regulation vs. more? And the point? In this case he obviously supported more and better regulation and he was right.

Totally acceptable for leadership in this country is someone like Joe Biden who can give you a bs answer like FDR got on tv and explained the crisis to the American people, because it was delivered smoothly and with confidence.

Exemplary is the candidate who speak in passive abstracts, turning himself into a blank substrate, onto which the electorate can impress their hopes and changes, thus attempting to be all things to all people.

Principles and a proven decision making process are critical to leadership. Specific knowledge about the possible issues a leader will face is of secondary concern.

I'm a professional PR person and I've media-trained more than a few people during my career. Some of them were absolutely horrible speakers to begin with. But after a few hours or, at worst, days of work, it was almost always possible to make them sound credible, even if they were talking about topics that were not their primary area of expertise. Seeing Palin flail in these interviews, unable to answer even the most obvious and likely questions, leads me to conclude that either she has the worst media trainers EVAR or (and I think this is more likely) she is a complete and total moron. There is simply NO WAY she wasn't given better talking points for the foreign policy experience question. None. Or, for that matter, the question about the financial crisis and John McCain's record of reform from the previous interview with Couric. After all of the time and effort invested in making Palin sound like something else, in the end she still comes across as an unserious and shallow person.

Palin is simply a demogogue giving "pageant answers" to important questions.Or else...Team McCain put her out there like a staked goat for Couric to savage to wring the last drop of IQ-bait from the culture wars.

It's not because she's not smart. She is. It's because she has to stick to a script that reflects the McCain campaign. True. But, it's also partly because she has absolutely no underlying opinion of her own, nor enough curiosity to have been well informed.

After the kind of obsequious, sycophantic verbal fellatio that has been given some of the other candidates, who have said far stupider things, it would be more helpful to wipe the slate clean and just have a new set of interviewers, if we want to seriously rate political candidates.

I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

It was a total 'gotcha' moment when Couric challenged Gov Palin on McCain's Freddie Mac actions, EXCEPT for the big one.

Palin should've mentioned Obama being the second biggest recipient of FM/FM campaign donations. And, she should've challenged Katie right back. Hell, Katie is the media and, she should know the answer.